Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers Numbered Notice of Petition/Cross Motion/Order to Show Cause and Petition/Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 1, 2 Answer/Memo of Law in Opposition 3, 4 DECISION/ORDER Petitioner’s motion, pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, to reverse and annul the decision issued by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) on July 24, 2019, upholding five default decisions is denied. Petitioner’s motion to reverse and annul the determination of OATH’s Appeals Unit on November 15, 2019, which upheld the decision by Hearing Officer Eva Marie Russo Lane dated June 14, 2019 on summons numbers 035373033X, 035401852P and 035315020L, is also denied. Petitioner was issued five summonses by the New York City Department of Buildings between November 27, 2017 and November 30, 2017 for violations of the New York City Administrative Code (Summonses 35293346R, 35293347Z, 35293348K, 35293430J, 35293431L) (See Respondents’ Exhibits A-E). All five summonses state that the issuing officer served the notices of violation in accordance with New York City Charter §1049-a(d)(2) by posting the summonses to the front door of the premises (Id.). According to the affidavits of service, copies of the summonses/notices of hearing for all five violations were mailed to petitioner on January 2, 2018 to the address of the premises, and to the address on file with the New York State Division of Corporations (Respondents’ Exhibit G; Petitioner’s Exhibit A). The hearing was held at OATH Hearings Division on April 23, 2018, and petitioner did not appear (Respondents’ Exhibit H). Therefore, on April 30, 2018, OATH Hearings Division issued decisions on default, finding petitioner in violation on all five summonses (Id.). On August 14, 2018, petitioner’s Chief Executive Officer sent a letter to the New York City Department of Finance, OATH Violation Processing, indicating that he was disputing all five violations, because he never received the notices of the violations (Respondents’ Exhibit J). On August 27, 2018, OATH sent petitioner’s Chief Executive Officer a letter advising him of the procedure for requesting a new hearing after a default (Respondents’ Exhibit K). Petitioner did not formally request a new hearing until July 18, 2019, and OATH denied petitioner’s motion for a new hearing on July 24, 2019, because “the request was submitted more than one (1) year after the date of the default decision and did not establish that exceptional circumstances prevented [petitioner] from appearing” (Respondents’ Exhibits W, X). Petitioner was issued three summonses (035315020L, 035373033X, and 035401852P) by the New York City Department of Buildings for violations of New York City Administrative Code §28-118.3.2 for “occupancy contrary to that allowed by the [Certificate of Occupancy] or Buildings Department records” on December 1, 2018, January 8, 2019, and March 1, 2019, respectively (Respondents’ Exhibits L, N, P). All three summonses were served in accordance with New York City Charter §1049-a(d)(2) (Id.). A hearing on all three summonses was held before Hearing Officer Eva Marie Russo Lane on June 10, 2019, and she issued a decision on June 14, 2019, finding petitioner in violation for all three summonses (Respondents’ Exhibit V). According to the affidavit of service, Hearing Officer Eva Marie Russo Lane’s decision was mailed on June 17, 2019 to petitioner’s authorized representative at the address where he requested the decision be mailed (Respondents’ Exhibits S, T, V). Petitioner appealed the decision on summonses 035373033X and 035401852P on October 31, 2019, after receiving a bill from the New York City Department of Finance (Respondents’ Exhibit Y). Petitioner appealed the decision on summons #035315020L on November 14, 2019, after receiving a copy of the hearing officer’s decision in the mail (Respondents’ Exhibit AA). On November 15, 2019, OATH denied petitioner’s appeal requests, because petitioner did not appeal within 35 days of the date of the hearing officer’s decision (Respondents’ Exhibit BB). In support of the Article 78 motion, petitioner alleges that it was never served the summonses (Summonses 035293346R, 035293347Z, 035293348K, 035293430J, and 03529341L), or notices of the hearing date for the five violations, for which OATH found petitioner in default (Petition
